FIR registration lapse: Allahabad High Court seeks UP Police reports on omitted rape sections

The Allahabad High Court flagged a FIR registration lapse after rape was alleged in a complaint but relevant IPC provisions were not added in the FIR. Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari directed the DGP, Principal Secretary (Home), and SSP Bareilly to file reports, take action against erring officials, and propose a mechanism to improve FIR registration practices.

The Allahabad High Court flagged serious gaps in a police case from Bareilly. The court noted that the written complaint referred to rape. However, the FIR did not apply any rape-related sections. The court asked senior Uttar Pradesh Police and home department officials to explain the mismatch and report what action followed.

The directions came in an order dated March 17. Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari asked the director general of police DGP, the principal secretary home, and the senior superintendent of police SSP, Bareilly, to file compliance reports. The court also fixed the next hearing for the week commencing April 27.

Allahabad High Court flags FIR registration lapses in Bareilly case

The court said the FIR and the victim’s statement, on the face of it, suggested rape allegations. Yet the police did not add any such charge. The judge called this a serious lapse. The court also pointed to differences between the written complaint and the FIR, raising doubts about investigation fairness.

Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari also directed the DGP and the principal secretary home to create a mechanism. This mechanism must sensitise police staff on correct FIR registration. The judge further told the SSP, Bareilly, to take action against officials responsible for the errors.

Allahabad High Court examines FIR registration under BNSS powers

The observations came during a petition by Shivam Singh. Shivam Singh sought to quash a chargesheet dated April 17, 2024. Shivam Singh also challenged a cognisance order dated January 15, 2025. A judicial magistrate in Bareilly had passed the cognisance order.

The case against Shivam Singh was registered under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC. Section 498A deals with cruelty by husband or relatives. Section 506 relates to criminal intimidation. During arguments, counsel for Shivam Singh said the FIR did not make out offences under these sections.

Counsel for the petitioner also claimed there was no valid marriage between the parties. The counsel said this made the accusations unclear. The state opposed the plea. The state told the court that the petitioner formed a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage and a government job.

Allahabad High Court cites mandatory FIR registration in cognisable offences

While dealing with the record, the court referred to Ramesh Kumari vs State NCT of Delhi. The judge repeated that police must register an FIR for cognisable offences. Using powers under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita BNSS, the court directed authorities to take necessary steps to address the issue.

The high court ordered the concerned officials to submit reports on the discrepancies. It also sought details of corrective steps and accountability. The matter is set to return in the week commencing April 27. The court’s order keeps focus on accurate FIR registration and proper action in such complaints.

With inputs from PTI